On 12-07-17, 16:28, Rob Herring wrote:
> Display is a pretty well known use case here. Do you have other
> examples in mind?
No, I don't.
@Stephen: Do you have more cases like this for your Qcom products ?
> Other cases I've seen are automotive with keeping
> the backup camera going and CAN bus handling. Though my new car has a
> flicker shortly after coming on, so I guess the handoff doesn't have
> to be completely seemless. :)
:)
> [...]
>
> > + mmc: mmc@0x0 {
> > + ...
> > + ...
> > + vmmc-supply = <&twl_reg1>;
> > + vmmcaux-supply = <&twl_reg2>;
> > + boot-constraint-supplies = "vmmc", "vmmcaux";
> > + boot-constraint-uV = <1800000 2000000>, /* vmmc */
> > + <2000000 2000000>; /* vmmcaux */
>
> No. I don't like how this is going to extend to all the other bindings
> people are going to want constraints for. We don't need a parallel set
> of properties for each type of binding.
Fair enough.
> I'm not convinced that we need a general solution for what's probably
> a handful of things that need a handoff versus just re-initialize.
What about keeping the first four patches (mostly) as it is and adding
these constraints from a platform specific constraints driver ?
Will that be acceptable ?
--
viresh
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
